Re: supertuxkart 0.7.3
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jon Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 02:55:50AM -0800, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>> Precedent for the latter, i.e. precedent for embedding forked code in
>> a package? Sure, there are hundreds of examples [1].
>
> No, the latter was the patch-irrlicht route. So I agree with you that embedding
> in supertuxkart is the better approach. I was wondering if there was precedent
> for creating a special patched version of binary lib packages for just one
> other package to build-depend on.
>
>> > And every time the supertuxkart-specific bits were modified, all users
>> > of the other bits would get a new binary package to download and install,
>> > for no reason.
>>
>> I've been thinking of splitting up supertuxkart into two separate
>> source packages (supertuxkart and supertuxkart-data), actually, which
>> more or less takes care of this problem.
>
> To clarify the problem I was talking about was if you patched irrlicht then
> every time any change was made to the supertuxkart-specific bits, the source
> version will increment, and the non-supertuxkart-specific irrlicht binary
> packages will be rebuilt and users of those will get new binary packages to
> download which don't do anything new.
>
Oops, sorry. Note to self: read email a bit more carefully before
rushing a reply at 3 am in the morning. :P
Vincent
Reply to: